ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
Comparison of MemoKath™ ureteral stent versus tumor ureteral stent: A single-center long-term analysis.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The MemoKath™-051 (MK) is a thermo-expandable spiral stent for the treatment of benign or malignant ureteral obstruction. Existing studies on outcome measurements, like complication rate or time to stent exchange for MK differ significantly. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the supposed superiority of the MK over conventional tumor ureteral stent (TUS) insertion. Material and methods: In this monocentric retrospective analysis, 72 consecutive patients with benign or malignant extrinsic ureteral stenosis who either underwent insertion of a MK or TUS between 03/2008 and 12/2018 were analyzed. Indications for stent insertion were either chronic benign or malignant extrinsic obstruction in patients who were unsuitable for or refused definitive surgery. Patients who underwent urinary diversion were excluded. We compared the indwelling time, the complication rates and the time to occurrence of complications using Mann-Whitney-U-test and χ Results: The total number of ureteral units analyzed was 171, including 89 MK stents and 82 TUSs. No significant differences between both groups regarding age, stent indications, and stricture characteristics occurred. At a median follow-up of 32 and 27 months in the MK and TUS groups, postoperative complications occurred in 82 (92%) and 19 (23%) patients, respectively (p = 0.01). Almost all complications were major (CDC grade 3b) that required stent removal or replacement, with the exception of one patient in the MK group. Median time to complications was significantly longer for the MK group, 5.6 months, compared to 3.5 months in the TUS group (p = 0.01), and median time to stent replacement was 8 months for the MK group vs 5.2 months for the TUS group (p <0.001). Conclusions: Although the MemoKath™ is designed for a long indwelling time of up to years, it is associated with higher complication rates and premature replacement. However, compared to the TUS, the MK still has a significantly longer indwelling time. Further studies are needed to determine the predictors of failure and the best candidates for both stents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.